Ci^/H.v.K^ 


J  1.-2,^,  ILT^ 


S^quf a%b  htf  \\\vx  to 

llf^  ffitbrarg  of 

^^rtttrrtnn  Sljwingtral  ^^mtttarg 


Foreign  Religious  Series 


Edited  by 
R.  J.   COOKE,  D.  D. 


First  Series.    i6mo,  cloth.     Each  40  cents,  net. 


THE  VIRGIN  BIRTH 

By  Professor  Richard  H.  Grutzmacher,  of  the 
University  of  Rostock 


THE  RESURRECTION  OF  JESUS 

By  Professor  Edtiard   Riggenbach,  of  the  University 
of  Basle 


THE  SINLESSNESS  OF  JESUS 

By  Professor  Max  Meyer,  Lie.  Theol.,  Gottberg, 

Germany 


THE  MIRACLES  OF  JESUS 

By  Professor  Karl  Beth,  of  the  University 
of  Berlin 

THE  GOSPEL  OF  JOHN  AND  THE 
SYNOPTIC  GOSPELS 

By  Professor  Fritz  Barth,  of  the  University 
of  Bern 


NEW  TESTAMENT  PARALLELS  IN 

BUDDHISTIC  LITERATURE 

By  Professor  Karl  Von  Hase,  of  the  University 
of  Breslau 


The   Resurrection   of 
Jesus 


EDUARD   RIGGENBACH 

Professor  in  the  University  of  Basle 


NEW    YORK:      EATON    &    MAINS 
CINCINNATI:  JENNINGS  &  GRAHAM 


Copyright,  1907,  by 
EATON  &  MAINS. 


INTRODUCTION 

There  is  scarcely  another  fact  in  the 
Christian  Faith  that  has  caused  so  much 
difficuhy  to  the  belief  of  the  modern  man 
as  that  of  the  Resurrection  of  Jesus.  The 
advance  of  science  in  our  days  seems  to  leave 
no  room  for  miracle,  especially  for  such  a 
miracle  as  the  resurrection  of  the  dead  to  a 
new  bodily  life.  And  yet  the  question  here 
is  not  of  a  miracle  which  could  be  put  aside 
as  unhistorical,  without  essential  deduction 
from  the  apostolic  Gospel.  The  church  has 
always  considered  the  resurrection  of  Jesus 
as  a  principal  part  of  her  message.  The 
apostle  Paul  occasionally  describes  Christian 
saving  faith  in  the  words:  *'Thou  believest 
in  thine  heart  that  God  hath  raised  Jesus 
from  the  dead"  (Rom.  lo.  9)  ;  and  he  also 
says  directly:  "If  Christ  be  not  risen  then 
is  our  preaching  vain  ...  ye  are  yet  in 
your  sins.  Then  they  also  which  are  fallen 
asleep  in  Christ  are  perished"  (i  Cor.  15. 
14,  17,  18).  In  like  manner  among  all 
other  New  Testament  writers,  the  resurrec- 


6  Introduction 

tion  of  Jesus  stands  at  the  center  of  their 
testimony,  and  without  the  preaching  of  the 
Risen  One  the  Christian  church  would  have 
been  an  impossibihty.  To  give  it  up  means 
nothing  less  than  to  give  up  the  apostolic 
Gospel.  Should  one  try  to  build  a  new 
Christianity  from  what  is  left,  such  a  re- 
ligion would  hardly  show  the  victorious 
power  in  the  struggle  with  sin  and  death 
which  is  inherent  in  the  preaching  of  the 
apostles.  Consideration  for  consequences 
cannot,  indeed,  prevent  us  from  abandoning 
a  traditional  idea  if  it  does  not  express  the 
truth.  The  more  closely  the  question  under 
discussion  affects  our  holiest  interests,  the 
more  important  is  it  that  we  should  be  kept 
from  illusions.  On  the  other  hand,  the 
blessed  effect,  which  proceeded  from  the 
apostolic  preaching,  warns  us  against  rashly 
giving  up  a  belief  in  what  is  perhaps  dis- 
puted, but  not  refuted.  At  any  rate,  the 
interest  of  thought  and  faith  demands  im- 
peratively a  serious  and  conscientious  ex- 
amination. We  can  not  and  dare  not  close 
our  eyes  to  the  truth,  but  just  as  little  should 
we  be  induced  tO'  accept  as  truth  that  which, 
at  the  most,  may  possibly  be  a  mere  hypothe- 


Introduction  7 

sis.  Not  science  but  faith  will  have  the  last 
word  in  this  question.  Investigation  can 
only  mark  out  the  boundaries  of  the  real 
and  knowable  and  consider  the  possible  ex- 
planations of  established  facts.  In  this,  how- 
ever, it  renders  a  valuable  service  to  faith 
b}^  guarding  it  from  the  Influence  of  pre- 
conceived opinions,  instead  of  reality.  A 
one-sided  cultivation  of  critical  acumen  and 
an  unwarranted  neglect  of  historical  inquiry, 
are  alike  dangerous  to  the  continuance  of 
genuine  belief. 


THE  SOURCES  OF  THE  RESURREC- 
TION HISTORY 

An  examination  of  belief  in  the  resurrec- 
tion of  Jesus  cannot  be  made  without  a  criti- 
cal study  of  its  sources.  In  ascertaining  an 
historical  fact,  one  will  first  of  all  look  for 
the  accounts  of  eye-witnesses.  Now  it  is 
true  that  the  Resurrection  of  Jesus  was  not 
seen  by  any  human  eye.  In  later  apocryphal 
writings  only  is  any  other  statement  made. 
The  disciples  saw  only  the  empty  sepulcher 
and  the  Risen  One.  In  this  respect  it  seems 
best  to  start  from  the  first  and  fourth  Gos- 
pels which,  according  to  ecclesiastical  tra- 
dition, were  composed  by  apostles.  But  the 
Greek  form  in  which  the  first  Gospel  is  ex- 
tant is  not  from  the  apostle  Matthew.^    Ac- 


1  This  is  perhaps  a  little  too  strong  (see  Expositor's 
Greek  Testament,  p.  43).  To  Papias  maybe  added  Ire- 
naeus  and  also  Pantaenus  (Eusebius,Eccles.  History,  v.  10); 
but  the  loss  of  the  Hebrew  Gospel,  the  authority  of  the 
Greek  Text  in  the  Church,  similarity  to  the  other  Gospels 
and  originality  of  style  forbid  a  pronounced  opinion.— 


lo       The  Resurrection  of  Jesus 

cording  to  the  testimony  of  Paplas,  Bishop 
of  Hierapolis  in  Phrygia  (about  130  A.  D.), 
Matthew  composed  his  work  in  the  Hebrew, 
that  is,  according  to  the  usage  of  that  time, 
in  the  Aramaic.  In  how  far  our  Greek 
Gospel  of  Matthew  is  a  hteral  translation  or 
a  free  recast  of  this  Aramaic  book,  is  a  much 
disputed  question,  and  as  to  details,  is  diffi- 
cult to  answer.  In  the  history  of  the  Resur- 
rection strong  considerations  can  be  urged 
against  the  supposition  that  we  have  a  first 
hand  account  by  one  of  the  twelve.  Com- 
pared with  its  parallels  the  Easter-story  of 
Matthew's  Gospel  surprises  us  by  its  incom- 
pleteness, and  when  one  compares  Matthew's 
narrative  of  the  women's  walk  to  the  sepul- 
cher  with  that  of  Mark  he  does  not  gain  the 
impression  that  the  greater  originality  be- 
longs to  Matthew.  A  proper  starting  point 
for  the  inquiry  is  found  here. 

It  is  different  with  the  fourth  Gospel.  Its 
composition  by  the  apostle  John  is  so  easily 
and  forcibly  attested  by  ecclesiastical  tra- 
dition, that  its  genuineness  would  never  have 
been  doubted  had  not  one  imagined  that  it 
was  necessitated  by  internal  evidence.  But 
criticism  has  not  succeeded  in  setting  aside 


Sources  of  Resurrection  History  i  i 

the  testimony  of  the  ancient  church,  and 
despite  the  undeniable  differences  which  dis- 
tinguish the  fourth  Gospel  from  the  first 
three,  it  must  still  be  considered  as  the  work 
of  the  apostle  John.  As  is  generally  ac- 
knowledged, it  is  the  latest  of  the  canonical 
Gospel  writings  not  written  until  the  end 
of  the  first  century.  And  the  question  may 
be  asked,  whether  the  recollection  of  the 
apostle  has  not  been  darkened  in  the  course 
of  the  decades,  and  whether  the  one  or  the 
other  point  has  not  been  shifted  in  his  con- 
sciousness by  the  tradition  which  became 
ruling  in  the  church.  At  any  rate,  an  under- 
standing with  opponents  is  precluded  from 
the  start  when  decisive  weight  is  put  upon  a 
work  whose  genuineness  is  zealously  contro- 
verted. Thus  it  will  be  well  to  examine  the 
extant  documents  according  to  the  chrono- 
logical order  of  their  origin, 

The  Account  of  Paul 

The  earliest  document  which  contains  a 
detailed  account  of  the  Easter  events  is  a 
section  in  the  first  Epistle  to  the  Corinthians, 
15.  3-8.    The  denial  of  the  future  resurrec- 


12       The  Resurrection  of  Jesus 

tion  of  the  believers  on  the  part  of  some 
Christians  at  Corinth,  induces  the  apostle 
to  fall  back  upon  the  resurrection  of  Jesus. 
As  matters  of  fact  which  in  the  first  lines 
he  had  already  delivered  to  the  Church  he 
mentions  the  death  of  Jesus  for  our  sins  ac- 
cording to  the  Scriptures,  his  burial  and  his 
rising  again  on  the  third  day  according  to 
the  Scriptures.  Then  he  tells  of  the  six  ap- 
pearances of  the  Risen  Lord,  which  he  evi- 
dently gives  according  to  their  chronological 
order.  The  first  is  that  to  Cephas;  then 
that  to  the  Twelve;  then  one  to  more  than 
five  hundred  brethren,  the  greater  part  of 
whom  were  still  alive  and  thus  in  a  condi- 
tion to  corroborate  his  testimony;  after 
that  he  was  seen  of  James,  then  of  all  the 
apostles,  whereby  probably  are  meant  not 
only  the  Twelve  but  also  other  original 
witnesses  of  Christ,  as  for  example,  the 
brethren  of  the  Lord  (i  Cor.  9.  5).  The 
last  of  the  series  forms  the  Christophany 
before  Damascus,  which  Paul  himself  had 
experienced.  There  can  be  no  doubt  that 
altogether  the  apostle  intends  to  enumerate 
the  most  important  appearances  of  the 
Risen  Jesus.     But  one  overstrains  the  sig- 


Sources  of  Resurrection  History  13 

nificance  of  this  account  when  historicity 
is  denied  to  all  self-revelations  of  the  Lord 
not  mentioned  therein.  We  are  not  obliged 
to  suppose  that  Paul  narrated  all  that  he 
knew,  or  that  he  knew  all  that  actually  took 
place.  He  reminds  the  Corinthians  only  of 
that  which  he  had  already  communicated  to 
them  (i  Cor.  15.  i  seq.),  and  only  mentions 
manifestations  of  the  Risen  One  to  such 
persons  as  by  virtue  of  their  authority  and 
position,  or  because  of  other  circumstances, 
could  be  considered  as  especially  trust- 
worthy witnesses  for  the  resurrection  of 
Jesus.  This  is  the  main  point  with  him. 
On  this  account  he  does  not  tell  whether  the 
Risen  One  entered  into  intercourse  with 
the  disciples  and  what  was  the  issue  of 
it.  Only  by  completely  mistaking  the  con- 
nection can  far-reaching  inferences  be 
drawn  from  the  silence  of  the  apostles. 
This  is  also  the  case  with  reference  to  the 
fact  that  he  does  not  mention  the  empty 
sepulcher.  When  Paul,  in  support  of  the 
bodily  resurrection  of  Christians  reminded 
them  that  the  dead  and  buried  Christ  was 
raised  on  the  third  day,  none  of  the  read- 
ers of  the  Epistle  could  think  of  anything 


14       The  Resurrection  of  Jesus 

else  than  of  a  bodily  coming  forth  of 
Christ  from  the  grave.  The  fact  is  that 
for  Paul  himself  the  empty  grave  has  no 
special  significance  as  evidence.  The  posi- 
tive fact  that  the  Risen  Jesus  had  presented 
himself  bodily  to  his  own  is  so  decisive  for 
him,  that  he  does  not  think  at  all  of  the 
empty  grave. 

Paul  probably  wrote  the  first  Epistle  to 
the  Corinthians  in  57  A.  D.  What  he  re- 
cords in  it  of  the  resurrection  of  Jesus  is  of  a 
much  earlier  date.  Five  years  earlier  the 
apostle  in  his  missionary  address  at  Corinth 
had  preached  just  this  which  he  now  attests 
to  the  congregation,  and  the  emphasis  which 
he  places  on  his  message  of  the  need  of  sal- 
vation, precludes  the  idea  of  a  possible 
change  in  his  views  (i  Cor.  15.  1-3,  11-20). 
We  must  go  back  still  further  in  order  to 
get  at  the  source  of  his  preaching.  As  in 
another  place  (i  Cor.  11.  23)  he  refers 
here  also  (i  Cor.  15.  3)  expressly  to  the 
information  which  he  received.  Of  whom  he 
received  it  he  indicates  when  he  affirms 
(verse  11)  that  his  message  is  in  full  agree- 
ment with  that  of  the  first  apostles.  He  cer- 
tainly did  not  begin  his  extensive  activity 


Sources  of  Resurrection  History  15 

among  the  Gentiles  without  being  perfectly 
clear  as  to  the  content  of  his  message.  Thus 
on  his  visit  to  Jerusalem  three  years  after 
his  conversion,  about  38  A.  D.,  he  may  have 
already  received  accurate  information  about 
the  Easter  events.  At  that  time,  according 
to  Gal.  I.  18-20,  he  personally  became  ac- 
quainted with  two  men  of  the  apostolic 
circle,  Peter  and  James  the  brother  of  the 
Lord,  and  spent  fourteen  days  in  intercourse 
with  them.*  To  them  as  his  authorities  for 
his  knowledge,  we  are  referred  without  fur- 
ther statement  because  among  the  appear- 
ances of  the  Risen  Lord  to  individuals  of 
whom  w^e  read  in  i.  Cor.  15,  those  to  Peter 
and  John  are  specified.  What  he  learned 
from  these  men  other  members  of  the  primi- 
tive church,  no  doubt,  confirmed  and  supple- 
mented. The  supposition  is  obvious  that 
men  like  Andronicus  and  Junia,  who 
were  converted  before  Paul  and  were  known 
missionaries  (Rom.  16.  7),  belonged  to  the 
five  hundred  tO'  whose  testimony  Paul  refers 
(i  Cor.  15.  6).  But,  however  this  may  be, 
certain  It  Is  that  In  i  Cor.  15  Paul  Imparts, 
not  his  subjective  thoughts  about  the  resur- 

*  See  note  at  end  of  chapter. 


1 6       The  Resurrection  of  Jesus 

rection  of  Jesus,  but  the  accredited  teaching 
of  the  primitive  church.  This  doctrine  was 
for  him  an  unimpeachable  quantity.  As  the 
disciple  of  the  rabbis  was  bent  on  handing 
down  the  expositions  and  legal  decisions  of 
his  teacher,  still  more  was  it  a  concern  of 
the  apostle  to  propagate  conscientiously  that 
which  was  delivered  to  him  of  the  words 
and  deeds  of  Jesus.  On  this  account  also  is 
he  so  certain  of  his  agreement  with  the  early 
apostles  on  this  subject.  After  this  it  is 
evident  that  much  importance  is  attached  to 
the  account  of  Paul.  In  it  we  have  a  deposit 
of  the  oldest  doctrine  of  the  primitive 
church  attested  by  the  mouth  of  her  most 
prominent  authorities. 

The  First  Three  Gospels 

It  is  our  object  to  center  upon  the  difficult 
problem  How  the  peculiar  relation  of  agree- 
ment and  diversity  between  the  first  three 
Gospels  can  be  explained.  We  cannot  en- 
tirely ignore  the  question.  There  is  scarcely 
any  point  where  the  accounts  of  the  Gospels 
differ  so  much  as  in  the  Easter  story.  A 
genial  expositor,  the  late  F.  Godet,  aptly 
remarked :  "We  could  compare  here  the  four 


Sources  of  Resurrection  History  17 

accounts  with  four  friends,  each  of  whom, 
after  having  traveled  together,  being  near 
the  end  of  the  journey  takes  the  road  to  his 
own  home."  In  the  Bible  it  is  not  so  ob- 
vious, because  the  Gospel  of  Mark  had  an 
addition  which  is  a  combination  of  the 
Easter  narratives  from  the  three  other  Gos- 
pels, namely  that  in  section  16.  9-20. 

It  may  be  taken  as  a  settled  result  of  text- 
ual criticism  that  the  Gospel  of  Mark 
breaks  off  with  16.  8.  The  coincidence  of 
inner  and  outer  reasons  precludes  here  every 
doubt.  One  can,  indeed,  hardly  imagine 
that  the  evangelist  intended  to  narrate  the 
walk  of  the  women  to  the  sepulcher  without 
adding  an  account  of  the  appearance  of  the 
Risen  Jesus,  and  the  words  (verse  8) :  "The 
women  did  not  say  anything  to  any  man, 
for  they  were  afraid,"  as  a  close  of  the  book, 
are  just  as  unsatisfactory,  as  contradictory 
in  themselves.  Whether  Mark  was  prevent- 
ed by  outward  circumstances  from  finish- 
ing his  notes,  or  whether  the  original  close 
of  the  Gospel  had  been  lost  before  its  pub- 
lication, cannot  be  decided.  But  we  know 
from  an  ancient  Armenian  version  of  the 
Bible,  that  the  section   16.  9-20,  in  some 


;i8       The  Resurrection  of  Jesus 

copies  of  the  Gospel  of  Mark,  had  the  super- 
scription "by  the  presbyter  Aristion." 
From  this  we  assume  that  a  Christian  of 
that  name  is  undoubtedly  meant,  whom 
Eusebius,  in  his  Ecclesiastical  History  (III, 
39.  4,  5,  7,  14),  mentions  as  a  personal  dis- 
ciple of  Jesus.  In  order  to  round  up  some- 
what the  strange  close  of  the  Gospel  of 
Mark,  some  one  added  to  the  book,  at  the 
end  of  the  first  or  beginning  of  the  second 
century,  from  notes  of  Aristion,  the  sec- 
tion Mark  16.  9-20.  Whether  Aristion  him- 
self witnessed  the  Easter  event  we  know  not ; 
but  the  presumption  is  obvious  that  this  ac- 
count is  dependent  upon  our  Gospels  (comp. 
Mark  16.  9- 11  with  John  20.  11-18  and 
Luke  8.  2;  Mark  16.  12  seq.,  with  Luke  24. 
13-35;  Mark  16.  14-18  with  Matt.  28.  16- 
20).  At  all  events  he  stood  near  enough  to 
the  events  to  have  an  independent  knowledge 
of  them. 

Setting  aside  Mark  16.  9-20,  we  get  at 
once  a  different  view  of  the  mutual  relation 
of  the  Gospels.  Whereas  in  the  narrative  of 
the  walk  of  the  women  to  the  sepulcher  of 
Jesus  the  first  three  Gospels  in  general  agree, 
in  spite  of  many  differences  in  detail.  Mat- 


Sources  of  Resurrection  History  19 

thew  and  Luke  are  entirely  divergent.  If 
one  imagines  that  he  must  derive  the  rela- 
tionship of  the  first  three  Gospels  merely 
from  a  common  use  or  oral  tradition,  the 
great  difference  in  the  Easter  story  cannot 
be  explained.  It  is  otherwise  when  one 
presupposes  a  common  literary  foundation. 
Two  things  must  be  considered  as  very 
probable:  In  the  first  place  that  the  Gospel 
of  Mark  belongs  to  the  sources  mentioned 
by  Luke  (i.  i);  secondly  it  must  be  sup- 
posed that  of  the  first  two  Gospels,  the  one 
formed  the  copy  for  the  other.  A  more 
definite  statement  of  the  mutual  relation  is 
not  required  for  our  purpose.  The  much 
agitated  question  whether  Matthew  made 
use  of  Mark,  or  vice  versa,  can  be  left  open 
at  present.  Under  all  circumstances  it  must 
be  admitted  that  the  close  agreement  of  cer- 
tain parts  of  Matthew  and  Luke  is  mediated 
by  Mark.  Thus  it  cannot  cause  surprise 
that  with  the  close  of  Mark  the  point  is 
reached  where  the  various  agreements  of 
the  first  and  third  Gospels  cease  and  thence 
differ.  Matthew  speaks  briefly  of  an  appear- 
ance of  the  Lord  to  the  women  in  Jerusalem, 
but  in  a  most  detailed  way  of  one  to  the 


20       ,The  Resurrection  of  Jesus 

twelve  disciples  on  a  mountain  in  Galilee. 
He  thus  follows  the  direction  toward  which 
Mark  pointed  when  in  chap.  i6.  7,  he  men- 
tions the  word  of  the  angel  who  holds  out 
to  the  disciples  the  prospect  of  a  manifesta- 
tion of  the  Lord  in  Galilee.  Luke  (ch.  24) 
mentions  three  or  four  appearances  of  the 
Lord  in  Jerusalem  and  its  neighborhood; 
once  to  the  disciples  on  their  way  to  Em- 
maus  (verses  13-35),  one  to  Peter  (verse 
34),  one  to  the  apostles  (verses  36-49),  and 
one  in  verse  50  seq.  Although  it  may  seem 
as  if  the  evangelist  was  of  the  opinion  that 
everything  which  is  narrated  in  chapter  24 
happened  on  the  same  day  yet  it  is  not  diffi- 
cult to  perceive  that  in  reality  this  Is  not  his 
meaning.  Since  the  Emmaus-disciples  only 
undertook  the  walk  back  to  Jerusalem  (last- 
ing three  hours)  after  sunset,  and  Jesus  ap- 
peared again  to  the  disciples  in  the  evening, 
he  could  not  have  led  them  to  Bethany  until 
about  midnight,  and  no  reasonable  motive 
is  given  for  this  nocturnal  journey.  Luke 
here,  where  the  end  of  his  manuscript  no 
doubt  demanded  brevity,  intended  to  indi- 
cate only  what  he  wished  to  state  more  fully 
in   the   Acts   of  the   Apostles    (i.    i-ii), 


Sources  of  Resurrection  History  21 

namely :  that  Jesus,  during  a  certain  length 
of  time  was  repeatedly  seen  by  the  disciples, 
and  that  on  the  Mount  of  Olives  finally  de- 
parted from  them.  For  the  history  of  the 
Resurrection,  especially  chapter  24.  13-25, 
Luke  seems  to  have  had  a  Jerusalem  au- 
thority whose  traces  can  otherwise  also  be 
noticed  in  his  Gospel.  This  must  be  taken 
into  account  in  considering  why  he  only 
recorded  the  appearances  of  Christ  in 
Jerusalem. 

John 

The  fourth  Gospel,  whose  composition 
by  the  apostle  John  we  have  already  af- 
firmed, is  lacking  in  a  uniform  statement  in 
the  Easter  history.  To  the  original  extent 
of  the  Gospel  belongs  chapter  20.  This  is 
clearly  seen  from  the  closing  remark  (verses 
30,  31).  Chapter  21  is  an  addition  which 
mediately  or  immediately  also  belongs  to 
the  apostle  John,  but  which  was  added  later. 
In  chapter  20  the  evangelist  describes  first 
how  by  the  order  of  things  which  he  saw  in 
the  empty  sepulcher,  he  was  led  to  believe 
in  the  resurrection  of  Jesus  (verses  i-io), 
a  section  which  bears  the  stamp  of  personal 


22       The  Resurrection  of  Jesus 

experience.  He  then  describes  the  three 
appearances  of  the  Risen  One  of  which  that 
to  Mary  Magdalene  (verses  11-18)  and  that 
to  the  apostles,  excepting  Thomas  (verses 
10-25),  certainly  took  place  in  Jerusalem. 
On  account  of  the  similarity  of  the  situation, 
the  same  will  probably  also  hold  good  of  the 
third  appearance,  to  all  the  disciples  (verses 
26-29).  The  addition  (chapter  21)  men- 
tions an  appearance  of  the  Lord  in  Galilee 
by  the  Sea  of  Tiberias  in  the  presence  of 
seven  disciples.  The  relation  of  chapter  21 
to  chapter  20  is  highly  instructive.  It  not 
only  shows  that  the  evangelists  attach  no 
value  whatever  to  the  outward  situation,  for 
John  suddenly  transfers  the  reader  from 
Jerusalem  to  the  Galilean  sea  without  any 
waste  of  words,  but  it  causes  us  rather  to 
perceive  how  the  evangelists  in  the  selection 
of  their  material,  proceeded  freely  just  as 
the  purpose  of  their  statement  requires.  Ac- 
cording to  chapter  20.  30  seq.,  John  intended 
to  bring  the  readers  of  his  book  to  faith  in 
Jesus  as  the  Christ  and  Son  of  God.  On  this 
account  he  could  give  his  Gospel  a  more 
appropriate  close  than  the  history  of 
Thomas,  which  brings  before  the  eyes  how 


Sources  of  Resurrection  History  23 

the  last  and  most  obdurate  doubter  in  the 
circle  of  the  disciples  falls  down  adoringly 
before  the  Lord.  Had  a  special  reason  not 
caused  the  addition  of  chapter  21,  we  had 
known  nothing  of  the  appearance  in  Galilee 
of  which  John  knew,  as  also  of  the  appear- 
ances of  the  Lord  in  Jerusalem.  It  is  more- 
over remarkable  that  John,  in  recounting 
the  appearances  of  the  Risen  Lord  (21.  14) 
considers  only  those  to  the  circle  of  the  dis- 
ciples, but  pays  no  attention  to  that  to  Mary 
Magdalene  (20.  11  - 1 8 ) .  This  is  a  clear  sug- 
gestion how  the  enumeration  of  the  appear- 
ances by  Paul  (i  Cor.  15.  5-8)  is  to  be 
judged. 

Apocrypha 

Of  the  apocryphal  gospels,  only  the  pre- 
served fragments  of  the  gospel  of  the 
Hebrews  (originated  about  135),  and  of  the 
gospel  of  Peter  (about  150)  can,  at  the 
most,  be  taken  into  consideration.  The 
former  mentions  an  appearance  of  the  Risen 
to  James ;  but  what  it  states  beyond  ( i  Cor. 
15.  7)  is  historically  worthless.  Moreover, 
the  latter  gives  a  narrative  strikingly  bizarre 
in  its  fantastic  description  as  compared  with 


24       The  Resurrection  of  Jesus 

the  statement  of  the  canonical  gospels;  and 
the  supposition  is  not  unfounded  that  the  au- 
thor of  this  apocryphal  writing  may  have 
used  the  original  closing  verses  of  Mark. 

It  is  by  no  means  dogmatical  prejudice 
when  a  sharp  distinction  is  made  between 
canonical  and  apocryphal  gospels.  The 
secondary  contents  of  the  latter,  as  is  gener- 
ally acknowledged,  would  justify  this. 
Moreover,  such  a  distinction  is  required 
since  the  apocryphal  gospels,  for  example, 
the  gospel  of  Peter,  notoriously  utilize  the 
canonical  gospels,  without,  however,  con- 
sidering their  relatively  later  time  of  compo- 
sition, or  offering  any  guarantee  that  their 
own  additions  and  changes  are  to  be  traced 
back  to  anything  else  than  the  fancy  and 
tendency  of  their  authors.  The  gospel  of 
the  Hebrews,  on  account  of  its  possible  re- 
lation to  the  Aramaic  original  of  Matthew, 
and  because  of  its  Palestinic  origin,  might 
perhaps  claim  a  higher  estimate.  Positively 
it  contains  nothing  of  the  history  of  the 
Resurrection  which  could  be  regarded  as  an 
enrichment  of  the  canonical  tradition.  Com- 
pare with  the  apocryphal  narratives  the  ac- 
count of  Arlstion,  which  was  added  later  to 


Sources  of  Resurrection  History  25 

the  Gospel  of  Mark  (Mark  16.  9-20),  and 
one  will  admire  the  wisdom  of  the  church  in 
her  selection  of  the  descriptions  of  the  life 
of  Jesus  appointed  for  religious  use. 


Result 

This  short  survey  of  the  sources  exhibits 
an  almost  surprising  fullness  of  different 
narratives  and  varying  accounts.  It  would 
seem  almost  impossible  to  elicit  from  the 
protean  and  in  part  contradictory  state- 
ments the  course  of  events.  This  is  only  the 
case  so  long  as  one  considers  the  accounts 
as  of  equal  value,  and  thinks  that  each  indi- 
vidual letter  of  these  must  be  emphasized. 
But  the  picture  becomes  at  once  a  different 
one  when  one  places  the  individual  narratives 
beside  each  other,  seeks  out  the  main  streams 
of  tradition,  and  tries  to  obtain  the  under- 
standing of  the  individual  from  the  conclu- 
sive point  of  view.  An  example  may  suf- 
fice. All  four  Gospels  speak  of  the  women 
going  to  the  sepulcher.  Putting  their  narra- 
tives mosaically  together,  we  meet  with  so 
many  diversities  that  the  work  cannot  be 
carried  out  without  the  greatest  artificiality. 


26       The  Resurrection  of  Jesus 

It  is  different  when  one  distinguishes  the 
different  branches  of  tradition.  The  tra- 
dition of  the  first  three  Gospels  has  lost  the 
recollection,  preserved  by  John,  that  Mary- 
Magdalene  went  twice  to  the  sepulcher  of 
the  Lord,  once  in  company  with  the  other 
woman  (John  20.  i  seq. ;  observe  "we  know 
not,"  verse  2)  ;  the  second  time  with  Peter 
and  John  (John  20.  3-18). 

What  Mark  (16.  1-8)  tells  of  the  experi- 
ence of  the  women  at  the  sepulcher  occurs, 
meanwhile,  between  the  first  and  second 
walks  of  Magdalene,  and  his  account  is  in  so 
far  only  lacking  as  he  keeps  silent  about  the 
first  return  of  Magdalene  to  Jerusalem,  thus 
making  it  appear  that  her  experiences 
agreed  with  those  of  the  other  women. 
Matthew  (28.  i-io)  combines  the  tradition 
of  Mark  with  that  represented  by  John; 
hence  he  narrates  an  appearance  of  the  Lord 
to  the  women,  whereas,  according  to  John, 
the  question  was  only  of  one  Christophany 
to  Magdalene.  For  the  same  reason  he 
makes  the  women  speak  of  their  experience 
at  the  sepulcher;  whereas,  according  to 
Mark  16.  8,  they  kept  silent,  and  the  Magda- 
lene at  first  only  spoke  of  her  perceiving  the 


Sources  of  Resurrection  History  27 

empty  sepulcher  (John  20.  2),  and  after- 
ward told  of  seeing  the  Lord  (20.  18). 

In  Luke  (24.  i-ii)  a  Hke  combination  is 
found  insomuch  as  he  combines  the  record 
of  Mark  with  recollections  which  he  drew 
from  the  Jerusalem  source  peculiar  to  him 
(comp.  24.  22-24).  Thus  John,  by  offering 
quite  naturally  the  key  for  the  understanding 
of  the  events,  proves  to  be  the  best-informed 
eye-witness.  Mark  evidently  records  what 
Mary  the  mother  of  James  narrated ;  while 
Matthew  and  Luke  also  record,  not  their 
own  inventions,  but  the  account  of  Mark 
with  other  traditions,  whereby  a  certain 
confusion  originates. 

For  the  reconstruction  of  the  resurrection 
story  Paul  and  John  must,  in  the  first  in- 
stance, be  considered  as  authorities,  the  for- 
mer conveying  the  oldest  teaching  of  Peter 
and  James,  the  latter  an  eye-witness  of  most 
of  the  events.  Mark,  because  his  narra- 
tive breaks  off  with  16.  8,  is  so  far  to  be  used 
for  the  appearances  of  the  Lord,  as  infer- 
ences from  the  intended  continuation  of  the 
narratives  can  be  drawn  from  verses  1-8; 
but  it  is  obvious  that  the  greatest  care  is 
here  required  lest  one  fall  into  arbitrary  in- 


28       The  Resurrection  of  Jesus 

terpretations.  That  Luke  had  a  good  tra- 
dition in  his  special  source  is  attested  by  its 
harmony  with  John,  only  that  we  are  not  in 
a  position  to  judge  how  far  he  allows  this 
source  to  speak.  Finally  Matthew  also  had 
reliable  information,  but  is  little  concerned 
about  the  outward  details  of  the  events. 


[Note.  The  verb  used  by  Paul  in  verse  i8, 
IcTopTjcai^  is  very  suggestive.  The  word  see  in  A.  V. 
does  not  express  its  meaning,  nor  does  the  render- 
ing to  become  acquainted,  usually  given  by  cominen- 
tators,  fully  convey  the  idea  intended.  Paul  does 
not  say  he  went  up  to  Jerusalem  to  see  Peter,  nor 
to  become  acquainted  with  Peter;  such  was  not  his 
real  main  purpose  at  all ;  but  he  went  up  to  history 
Peter,  to  obtain  facts  from,  to  question,  examine 
Peter.  The  verb  InTopiu,  his  tor  eo,  signifies  to  ask, 
to  inquire  into,  to  find  out  what  one  has  to  relate 
as  a  fact;  and  the  noun,  such  knowledge  as  is  ob- 
tained by  inquiry,  a  written  account  of  facts,  his- 
tory. Paul  then  went  up  to  Jerusalem  to  examine 
Peter  concerning  historical  facts  in  the  life  of  Christ. 
— Editor.] 


II 


THE    HISTORICALLY    DEMON- 
STRABLE   FACT 

Whatever  one  may  think  of  the  miracle 
of  the  Easter  story,  he  must,  at  all  events 
acknowledge  that  it  is  founded  upon  some 
fact.  An  examination  of  the  actual  circum- 
stances would  be  impossible  save  that  it  is 
accurately  ascertained  what  can  be  found 
out  as  historically  true.  Of  course  the 
opinion  of  the  value  of  the  records  has 
here  a  decisive  influence;  but  it  should  be 
possible  to  obtain  some  fixed  points  from 
which  further  inquiry  can  proceed.  In  the 
following  we  shall  put  together  what  ap- 
pears to  us  to  be  historically  indisputable.  At 
the  same  time  we  will  confine  ourselves  to 
the  essential,  that  which  is  decisive  for  prov- 
ing the  fact  of  the  resurrection.  An  inquiry 
into  all  details  of  the  Gospel  accounts  is 
outside  the  setting  of  our  present  task,  and  it 
is  therefore  not  our  intention  to  give  up  as 
unhistorical  what  is  not  here  mentioned. 
We  only  wish  to  obtain  a  basis  which  shall 


30       The  Resurrection  of  Jesus 

make  a  decision  possible  on  the  essential  con- 
tents of  the  Easter  story. 

I.  It  is  generally  acknowledged  that  the 
disciples  became  deeply  dejected  when  Jesus 
was  taken  and  crucified.  As  the  entire  Gos- 
pel narrative  attests,  before  Easter  they 
could  not  accommodate  themselves  to  the 
suffering  of  their  Master.  Unto  the  end 
they  showed  surprise  and  opposition  to  the 
repeated  passion  prophecies  of  the  Lord, 
and  obstinately  warded  off  the  thought  of 
his  death.  This  fact  must  be  adhered  to 
even  when  the  announcement  of  the  passion 
has  to  be  considered  as  something  additional. 
The  description  of  the  behavior  of  the  dis- 
ciples would  only  show  how  difficult  it  was 
for  them  to  understand  then  and  even  after- 
ward the  suffering  fate  of  the  Master.  The 
flight  of  the  Twelve  in  Gethsemane  (Mark 
14.  50),  the  denial  of  Peter  (Mark  14.  66- 
y2)  and  the  aloofness  of  most  disciples  at 
the  crucifixion  (Mark  15.  40  seq. ;  Luke  23. 
49)  prove  that  the  events  of  those  critical 
days  had  completely  surprised  them.  How 
far  the  thought  of  a  resurrection  of  Jesus 
was  from  them  even  on  the  Easter  morn 
is  seen  in  the  intention  of  the  women  to 


Historically  Demonstrable  Fact  31 

anoint  the  Lord  (Mark  16.  i).  The  dispo- 
sition of  the  disciples  on  the  days  after  the 
crucifixion  of  Jesus  is  best  characterized  by 
that  inimitable  word  of  the  Emmaus  pil- 
grims (Luke  24.  21)  :  "We  trusted  that  it 
had  been  he  which  should  have  redeemed 
Israel."  Their  belief  in  the  prophetical  mis- 
sion of  Jesus  did  not  disappear,  nor  their 
love  for  him ;  but  the  trust  in  his  Messianic 
calling  is  gone,  or,  is  at  least  deeply  shaken. 
That  in  all  this  we  have  a  faithful  record, 
later  history  confirms.  As  for  the  Phari- 
sees, Saul  (comp.  Gal.  3.  13),  and  so  for 
the  Jews  in  general,  the  Crucifixion  was  an 
offence  from  which  they  turned  away  with 
loathing  (i  Cor.  i.  23;  Gal.  5.  11).  It  re- 
quired a  complete  reversal  of  national  views, 
hopes  and  feelings  for  the  Jew  to  surmount 
the  stumbling-block  of  the  cross.  Hence  we 
can  hardly  realize  to  ourselves  the  wretched 
despondency  and  despair  in  the  days  before 
Easter. 

2.  It  is  equally  certain  that  the  disciples 
some  time  afterward  became  firmly  con- 
vinced of  the  resurrection  of  Jesus.  The 
whole  primitive  church  is  founded  on  this 
faith.      It   cannot   have   originated   in   the 


32       The  Resurrection  of  Jesus 

course  of  historical  development,  but  must 
ever  have  been  the  common  property  of 
Christendom.  All  writers  of  the  New 
Testament  presuppose  it  as  a  matter  of 
Gospel,  or  expressly  attest  it. 

3.  Faith  in  the  resurrection  of  Jesus  was 
sustained  from  the  beginning  by  the  convic- 
tion that  the  Risen  Lord  had  repeatedly  ap- 
peared to  his  people  and  had  presented  him- 
self to  them  alive.  How  these  appearances 
are  to  be  explained  is  a  question  by  itself; 
their  actuality  cannot  be  denied.  The  ac- 
count of  Paul  in  i  Cor.  15.  3-8  vouches  for 
it,  and  it  cannot  be  touched  by  any  scepti- 
cism. Though  the  records,  in  numbering 
the  appearances,  may  differ  much,  it  must 
not  be  forgotten  that  none  of  them  claims  to 
be  complete,  especially  as  each  selects  ma- 
terial according  to  certain  points  of  view. 
Even  diversities  which  cannot  be  harmon- 
ized, can  only  prove  that  the  tradition  was 
not  clear  as  to  details ;  not  however  that  no 
appearances  had  taken  place  at  all.  But  we 
are  not  lacking  in  a  considerable  stock  of 
common  recollections. 

Of  the  appearances  mentioned  by  Paul 
(i   Cor.    15.    5-8)    some  can  certainly  be 


Historically  Demonstrable  Fact  33 

identified,  others  not  without  probabiHty, 
with  those  mentioned  in  the  Gospels.  Thus, 
as  witnesses  of  the  resurrection  of  Jesus  are 
mentioned :  Peter  (Luke  24.  34) ;  the 
Twelve  (Luke  24.  36-49;  John  20.  19-23; 
Mark  16.  14-18)  ;  perhaps  the  five  hundred 
brethren  (Matt.  28.  16-20)  ;  in  the  gospel 
of  the  Hebrews  only  James ;  probably  all  the 
apostles  (Luke  24.  50,  51;  Acts  i.  3-1 1). 
Passed  over  by  Paul  and  mentioned  only  in 
the  Gospels  are  the  appearances  to  Mary 
Magdalene  (John  20.  11-18;  Matt.  28.  9 
seq. ;  Mark  16.  9-1 1)  ;  to  the  Emmaus  pil- 
grims (Luke  24.  13-33;  Mark  16.  12  seq.)  ; 
to  the  Twelve,  including  Thomas  (John  20. 
26-29)  ;  to  the  seven  disciples  by  the  Galilean 
sea  (John  21).  That  Christophanies  of  a 
more  private,  pastoral  character  happened 
to  some  disciples  recorded  in  tradition  can- 
not be  strange.  More  conspicuous  is  the 
passing  over  of  self-manifestations  of  the 
Lord  before  larger  circles.  One  was  evi- 
dently satisfied  to  assert  that  the  Lord  ap- 
peared to  a  number  of  appointed  witnesses. 
The  certain  recollection  of  individual  cases 
was  more  valuable  than  a  great  number  of 
testimonies  difificult  to  control.    For  the  rest, 


34       The  Resurrection  of  Jesus 

traits  of  an  individual  character  are  some- 
times generalized  and  combined  with  the 
appearances  before  larger  circles.  Thus  the 
doubt  of  Thomas  (John  20.  23  seq.)  may 
be  referred  to  in  Matt.  28.  16;  Luke  24,  '^y\ 
Mark  16.  11,  13,  14,  but  in  the  absence  of 
details  that  cannot  be  stated  positively  as  a 
fact. 

4.  Though  often  disputed,  yet  it  is  his- 
torically certain  that  the  disciples  believed 
they  saw  the  Risen  Jesus  in  the  same  body 
which  was  laid  in  the  sepulcher,  but  that  it 
had  become  spiritualized.  All  accounts 
speak  of  a  bodily  resurrection ;  nevertheless, 
the  identity  of  the  dead  body  with  the  risen 
body  is  more  strongly  emphasized  in  the 
Gospels,  but  by  Paul  its  glorification.  Ac- 
cording to  all  four  Gospels  the  women  at  the 
sepulcher  learn  that  Jesus  is  no  longer  there, 
but  is  risen.  This  can  only  be  understood  as 
a  bodily  resurrection.  Mary  recognizes  the 
Lord  by  the  sound  of  his  voice  (John  20. 
16)  ;  Jesus  shows  unto  his  disciples  his  hands 
and  his  side  (John  20.  20,  27 ;  Luke  24.  39)  ; 
he  allows  men  to  touch  his  body  (Matt.  28. 
9;  Luke  24.  39;  John  20.  2y^  ;  he  even  eats 
with  them  to  convince  them  of  the  reality  of 


Historically  Demonstrable  Fact  35 

his  bodily  resurrection  (Luke  24.  41-43; 
Acts  ID.  41).  Though  these  traits  might 
lead  to  the  idea  that  the  Risen  had  returned 
into  the  former  earthly,  human  life,  yet 
there  are  others  which  point  to  a  glorified 
existence.  Jesus  suddenly  appears  among 
his  disciples,  the  doors  being  shut  (Luke  24. 
36;  John  20.  19,  26)  and  disappears  just  as 
unexpectedly  (Luke  24.  31).  The  disciples 
associate  no  more  with  him  as  formerly; 
they  only  know  him  when  he  makes  himself 
known  (Luke  24.  31,  35;  John  20.  16)  and 
observe  a  remarkable  reserve  toward  him 
(John  21).  This  is  explained  from  his 
having  already  entered  into  his  glory  (Luke 
24.  26).  According  to  Paul  the  Risen 
One  has  a  "glorious  body"  (Phil.  3.  21), 
a  spiritual  body,  serving  the  spirit  entirely 
as  organ  (i  Cor.  15.  44),;  but,  changed 
and  glorified,  it  is  nevertheless  the  same 
which  was  once  laid  in  the  grave.  This 
is  especially  clear  from  i  Cor.  15.  3,  4. 
To  the  statement  that  Jesus  was  buried, 
the  apostle  immediately  adds  the  other, 
that  he  rose  again  the  third  day  accord- 
ing to  the  Scriptures.  Burial  and  resur- 
rection  stand   in   such   close   relation   that 


36       The  Resurrection  of  Jesus 

no  other  idea  is  possible  than  that  Jesus  rose 
with  the  body  which  was  formerly  buried. 
This  is  confirmed  by  other  expressions  of  the 
apostle.  He  repeatedly  calls  baptism  a  being 
buried  and  raised  with  Christ  (Rom.  6.  3 
seq. ;  Col.  2.  12),  The  analogy  is  only  ap- 
propriate in  so  far  that  it  presupposes  the 
raising  of  the  body  of  Jesus  which  was 
buried.  When  the  candidate  for  baptism, 
according  to  the  rite  of  antiquity,  was 
plunged  into  the  water,  was,  as  it  were, 
buried  in  it,  and  afterward  came  out  of  the 
water  as  a  new  man  and  yet  as  the  same 
person,  this  act  represented  the  burial  and 
raising  of  Jesus.  No  thought  of  a  coarse 
materiality  of  the  resurrection  body  comes 
to  the  apostle  from  this  line  of  reflection. 
As  he  expected  that  at  the  coming  of  Christ 
the  living  believers  would  experience  a 
transformation  of  their  bodies,  he  also  pre- 
supposed that  the  dead  body  of  the  Lord 
had  at  its  raising  been  glorified  in  a  higher 
form  of  existence.  It  is  possible  that  the 
recollection  of  Paul  that  he  once  saw  the 
heavenly  One  may  have  given  a  peculiar 
stamp  to  the  picture  of  the  glorified  Christ ; 
yet  he  agrees  with  the  evangelists  that  the 


Historically  Demonstrable  Fact  37 

earthly  body  of  Jesus  was  not  decayed  in 
the  grave,  but  was  raised  and  glorified. 

5.  In  closest  relation  to  what  has  just 
been  said,  stands  the  certainty  of  the  dis- 
ciples that  the  sepulcher  of  Jesus  was  found 
empty.  The  disputers  of  the  resurrection  of 
Jesus  differ  in  their  opinion  as  to  whether 
we  have  to  deal  here  w^ith  an  historical  fact ; 
but  they  in  an  unconceivable  manner  make 
their  own  position  difficult  by  not  admitting 
the  empty  sepulcher,  since  they  thereby  de- 
prive themselves  of  the  strongest  starting- 
point  for  a  natural  explanation  of  the  belief 
of  the  disciples.  That  the  body  of  Jesus 
had  not  been  interred  in  some  unknown  cor- 
ner, but  was  honorably  buried,  is  beyond 
question.  Romans  and  Jews  did  not  refuse 
a  decent  burial  to  criminals  whose  relatives 
asked  for  the  body.  Concerning  the  burial 
of  Jesus  in  the  neighborhood  of  Golgotha, 
the  four  Gospels  give  an  account  perfectly 
harmonious  in  the  main,  and  Paul  also  ac- 
counts the  burial  of  Jesus  among  the  fixed 
beliefs  of  the  primitive  church  (i  Cor.  15. 
4;  comp.  Rom.  6.  4;  Col.  2.  12).  Mark  dis- 
tinctly states  how  the  women  carefully  be- 
held where  Jesus  was  laid   (15.  47),  and 


38       The  Resurrection  of  Jesus 

were  troubled  on  the  Easter  morning  be- 
cause they  were  unable  to  roll  away  the 
stone  from  the  door  of  the  sepulcher  (16. 
3)  ;  one  of  them,  no  doubt  being  well  ac- 
quainted with  the  locality.  Again,  we  read 
in  all  the  Gospels  that  the  women  who  went 
very  early  on  the  Easter  morning  to  the 
sepulcher  found  it  empty.  Luke  (24.  12, 
24)  and  John  (20.  i-io)  attest  the  same 
of  such  as  belonged  tO'  the  apostolic  circle. 
Even  the  enemies  of  Jesus  bear  here  an  un- 
mistakable witness  to  the  fact.  It  has  never 
been  objected  to  the  resurrection  preaching 
of  the  disciples  that  the  body  of  Jesus  was 
still  in  the  sepulcher  as  Peter  (Acts  2.  29), 
in  explanation  of  Psalm  16,  refers  to  David's 
sepulcher  and  which  naturally  would  have 
been  in  Jerusalem.  The  manufactured  report 
spread  by  the  Jews,  that  the  disciples  had 
stolen  the  body  (Matt.  28.  13,  15),  shows 
that  the  fact  that  the  sepulcher  was  empty 
could  not  even  be  denied.  What  is  objected 
to  in  the  historical  account  of  the  Gospels  on 
this  point  is  of  no  importance.  He  is  mis- 
taken who  thinks  that  the  news  of  the  empty 
sepulcher  would  have  induced  the  apostles, 
or  perhaps  a  mass  of  inquisitive  people  to 


Historically  Demonstrable  Fact  39 

visit  the  sepulcher.  It  may  have  been  a  few 
hours  before  the  disciples,  who  hardly  lived 
together,  had  been  informed  of  the  experi- 
ence of  Mary  Magdalene ;  besides  the  fear  of 
the  Jews  might  have  prevented  many  of 
them  from  showing  themselves  in  public. 
But  after  the  first  appearance  of  the  Risen 
had  taken  place,  the  attention  of  the  dis- 
ciples was  turned  from  the  empty  sepulcher 
to  the  Lord  himself,  and  there  was  no  need 
to  seek  the  proof  of  the  resurrection  of  the 
Lord  in  the  disappearance  of  the  body.  This 
is  illustrated  by  the  account  of  Paul  ( i  Cor. 
15.  3  seq.)?  who  here  certainly  sets  forth 
the  knowledge  of  the  church,  and  not  a  sup- 
posedly more  spiritual  subjective  opinion 
differing  from  the  view  of  the  Palestinians. 
6.  It  is  of  noteworthy  importance  that  the 
oldest  statement  placed  the  resurrection  of 
Jesus,  and  thus  also  the  first  appearance  of 
the  Risen  One,  on  the  third  day  after  the 
Crucifixion.  The  third  day  is  the  most 
strongly  attested  date  of  the  resurrection. 
Paul  refers  for  it  to  the  belief  of  the  congre- 
gation. All  four  Gospels  at  least,  preclude 
a  later  date,  stating  that  on  the  Easter 
morning  it  became  known  to  the  disciples  or 


40       The  Resurrection  of  Jesus 

the  women,  not  only  that  the  sepulcher  was 
empty,  but  also  that  the  Lord  had  risen 
(Mark  i6.  i-8).  Matthew  and  Luke  men- 
tion the  third  day  directly  as  the  date  of  the 
resurrection  by  the  prediction  of  Jesus,  that 
he  would  rise  again  "after  three  days" 
(Mark  8.  31 ;  9.  31 ;  lO.  34),  the  announce- 
ment of  the  resurrection  "on  the  third 
day,"  has  reference  to  the  fact  of  its  ful- 
fillment (Matt.  16.  21 ;  17.  23;  20.  19;  Luke 
9.  22 ;  18.  33 ;  especially  24.  7  and  46) .  An- 
other witness  for  this  date  is  the  Christian 
celebration  of  Sunday,  the  beginning  of 
which  reaches  back  to  the  apostolic  age. 
That  it  was  borrowed  from  Babylonian  or 
Persian  sun-cult  is  out  of  the  question. 
Though  there  may  be  more  trustworthy 
traces  of  a  distinction  of  the  Sabbath  above 
the  other  days  of  the  week  in  pre-Christian 
heathendom  or  Judaism  than  is  really  the 
case,  the  Christian  Sunday  celebration  has, 
at  all  events,  nothing  to  do  with  Sun-wor- 
ship. Not  even  the  astrological  name  "Sun- 
day" was  used  by  the  Christians  of  the  first 
centuries.  In  the  New  Testament  the  festive 
day  is  called  after  truly  Jewish  usage,  "the 
first  day  of  the  week"  (i  Cor.  16.  2;  Acts 


Historically  Demonstrable  Fact  41 

20.  7),  or  is  already  called  "the  Lord's  Day" 
Rev.  I.  10),  which  is  its  truly  Christian  no- 
tation. When  the  church  transferred  its  re- 
ligious celebration  tO'  the  first  day  of  the 
week,  and  not  to  the  Sabbath  of  Jewish  cus- 
tom, it  must  have  had  a  special  reason ;  and 
according  to  the  unanimous  testimony  of 
the  church  fathers,  it  was  the  resurrection 
of  Jesus  on  the  first  day  of  the  week — the 
third  day  after  the  Crucifixion. 

The  effort  to  derive  this  particular  date 
from  heathenish  notions,  perhaps  from  the 
idea  of  Parseeism,  that  after  death  the  soul 
still  hovers  three  days  and  three  nightis 
about  the  body,  is  just  as  abortive  as  the 
falling  back  upon  Old  Testament  passages 
like  Jonah  2.  i,  or  Jesus's  predictions  like 
Matt.  12.  40.  The  question  is  here  always  of 
"three  days"  instead  of  the  "third  day,"  and 
Hos.  6.  2,  "after  two  days  will  he  revive  us ; 
in  the  third  day  he  will  raise  us  up,  and  we 
shall  live  again  in  his  sight"  has  too  much 
the  stamp  of  a  proverbial  mode  of  expres- 
sion to  fix  definitely  the  time  of  the  resur- 
rection of  Jesus.  Besides,  this  passage 
played  no  part  whatever  in  the  Scripture 
proof  of  the  oldest  church.     Not  even  the 


42       The  Resurrection  of  Jesus 

finding  of  the  empty  sepulcher  made  it  pos- 
sible to  fix  the  time  of  the  resurrection  of 
Jesus,  since  no  one  knew  when  the  sepulcher 
had  become  empty.  The  dating  of  the  resur- 
rection on  the  third  day  finds  a  satisfactory 
explanation  only  in  this,  that  on  this  day 
the  appearances  of  the  Risen  One  took  place. 
This  is  also  attested  by  all  three  Gospels, 
which  in  general  record  the  self-manifesta- 
tions of  the  Risen  Jesus. 

7.  From  the  record  we  learn  that  the  first 
appearance  of  the  Lord  took  place  at  Jeru- 
salem. It  is  at  the  present  time  almost  gen- 
erally conceded  that  the  disciples  had  been 
there  on  the  Easter  morning;  this  is  clear 
from  Mark  16.  7.  They  would  then  have 
learned  that  the  sepulcher  of  Jesus  had  been 
found  empty  (John  20.  2).  The  original 
silence  of  the  women  (Mark  16.  8)  may  not 
have  lasted  very  long.  Having  learned  of 
the  empty  tomb  they  w^ould  not  have  left 
Jerusalem  at  once,  especially  as  the  Feast  of 
Unleavened  Bread  detained  them.  Thus  the 
circumstances  are  entirely  in  accord  with 
that  which  is  demanded  by  the  date  of  the 
resurrection,  and  is  attested  by  Matthew  (28. 
9  seq.),  Luke  (24)  and  John  (20.  11  seq.). 


Historically  Demonstrable  Fact  43 

that  the  first  appearance  of  the  Risen  Lord 
took  place  in  Jerusalem.  When  in  Mark 
(16.  7)  the  word  of  the  angel  expressly 
promises  to  the  disciples  a  seeing  of  the  Lord 
in  Galilee,  this  does  not  preclude  that  appear- 
ances took  place  also  in  Jerusalem.  A  pre- 
diction is  not  necessarily  an  account  of  what 
happened,  especially  since  the  word  of  the 
angel  contains  only  a  reproduction  of  Jesus's 
own  declaration  (Mark  14.  28).  What  is 
supposed  in  Mark  16.  7  finds  its  answer  in 
the  assumption  that  important  appearances 
of  Jesus  took  place  also  in  Galilee.  The  one- 
sided emphasis  on  such  a  one  in  Matthew 
(28.  7,  10,  16),  can  not  preclude  Jerusalem 
Christophanies,  because  through  the  absence 
of  almost  any  historical  individual  traits  the 
text  in  Matt.  28.  16-20  makes  the  impression 
of  having  been  condensed.  The  possibility 
at  any  rate  exists  that  "the  'either-or'  of  the 
statements  resolves  into  an  *as-well-as'  of  the 
facts."  That  the  disciples,  at  the  end  of  the 
feast,  returned  to  their  Galilean  homes,  is 
a  matter  of  course,  as  on  the  other  hand  the 
founding  of  the  church  in  Jerusalem  proves 
that  the  abode  of  the  disciples  in  Galilee  was 
of  long  duration.    On  this  account  the  self- 


3-4       .The  Resurrection  of  Jesus 

manifestations  of  the  Risen  One  there  could 
easily  recede  in  tradition.  The  room  for  ap- 
pearances in  Jerusalem  and  Galilee  is  cer- 
tainly warranted  by  history. 

8.  During  how  long  a  period  Christoph- 
anies  took  place  cannot  be  accurately  as- 
certained. According  to  Acts  i.  3,  it  was  a 
space  of  forty  days,  but  forty  may  be  meant 
as  a  round  number.  Paul  considers  the  ap- 
pearance which  happened  to  him  as  the  last 
of  all  (i  Cor.  15.  8).  The  Christophanies 
came  to  an  end  in  a  comparatively  short 
time,  without  considering  a  repetition  of 
them  as  necessary  or  possible. 

The  alleged  points  only  show  the  ground 
lines  of  the  resurrection  history.  As  to  the 
details  many  things  remain  uncertain  and 
indistinct.  This  is  in  part  due  to  the  already 
described  state  of  the  sources,  in  part  also 
to  the  nature  of  the  events  in  question.  We 
have  not  a  connected  series  of  events  to 
deal  with.  Jesus  no  longer  dwelt  in  the 
midst  of  his  disciples.  He  appears  to  them 
only  now  and  then,  and  these  experiences 
are  always  during  special  hours  of  rest. 
Then  their  whole  interest  is  concentrated 
upon  the  center  of  the  event,  the  person  of 


Historically  Demonstrable  Fact  45 

the  Lord,  and  all  accessory  circumstances 
recede.  In  the  fragmentary  character  of  the 
narratives  the  peculiarity  of  the  events  is 
reflected.  It  were  unreasonable  to  expect 
a  full  account  where,  as  a  matter  of  fact, 
single  pictures  only  can  be  offered.  What 
remains  of  minor  contradictions  in  the  par- 
allel accounts,  aside  from  this,  goes  hardly 
beyond  that  which  can  be  perceived  in  the 
whole  history  of  the  Gospels.  Where  hu- 
man observation  and  description  participate 
in  the  presentation  of  a  course  of  history, 
we  shall  always  find  differences  in  the  ac- 
counts, especially  where  the  narrators  are 
eye-witnesses.  But  one  need  not  therefore 
doubt  the  credibility  of  the  record.  A  judge 
of  very  long  experience  and  famous  for  his 
knowledge  of  men  once  said  that  perfect 
agreement  of  the  witnesses  is  always  a  proof 
that,  though  they  did  not  agree  in  their  In- 
dividual statements,  yet  it  harmonized  them 
as  to  the  main  fact.  Whoever  exercises  a 
minute  critique  on  such  details  and  uses  it  to 
discredit  the  recorded  events,  shows  no 
historical  tact. 

The  fundamental  facts  of  the  Easter  story 
can  well  be  perceived.     Though  a  different 


46       The  Resurrection  of  Jesus 

estimate  of  the  records  may  displace  the 
conception  as  to  details,  on  the  whole  there 
should  be  an  agreement  in  all  parts  as  to  the 
established  fact.  We  cannot  go  further  back 
than  to  the  oldest  belief  of  the  Church. 
Whoever  thinks  that  he  must  deny  it  all 
value,  and  prefers  to  put  his  own  construc- 
tions in  its  place,  should  be  conscious  that 
this  means  to  resign  historical  knowledge. 
But  in  the  case  of  an  event  which  evidently 
has  produced  the  most  powerful  historical 
effect,  it  should  not  be  impossible  to  find 
trustworthy  traces. 


Ill 


EXPLANATIONS  OF  THE  HISTOR- 
ICAL FACTS 

Briefly  condensing  the  historically  de- 
monstrable facts  of  the  Easter  events,  the  fol- 
lowing can  be  stated.  The  disciples,  most 
deeply  affected  by  the  death  of  the  Lord 
and  not  knowing  what  to  make  of  his  Mes- 
siahship,  on  the  third  day  after  the  Cruci- 
fixion, and  later  on  more  frequently,  be- 
lieved that  they  had  seen  Jesus  in  Jerusalem 
and  elsewhere,  risen  from  the  grave  to  a 
new,  glorified  life.  One  can  admit  this  with- 
out either  sharing  the  belief  of  the  disciples 
or  opposing  it.  It  concerns  here  only  the 
acknowledgment  of  an  historical  fact,  which, 
allowing  small  deductions,  cannot  at  all  be 
discredited  in  its  reality.  The  church-his- 
torical, yea,  the  world-historical  importance 
which  the  faith  of  the  disciples  has  obtained 
presses  to  further  inquiry;  more  yet,  the 
religious  interest  which  is  attached  to  the 
testimony  of  the  disciples.  How  did  they 
obtain  the  certainty  that  Jesus   rose  from 


48       The  Resurrection  of  Jesus 

the  dead?  Is  their  behef  based  on  a  real, 
outward  event,  and  if  so,  of  what  nature  is 
it  ?  Or,  has  a  change  merely  taken  place  in 
their  consciousness,  which  may  have  been 
caused  by  outward  circumstances,  but  has 
not  in  it  its  real,  last  reason  ?  Analogy  with 
like  phenomena  induces  the  sceptic  to  ex- 
plain the  origin  of  the  faith  of  the  disciples 
in  a  purely  natural  way.  The  opponents  of 
Christianity  have  pursued  that  course  from 
the  oldest  times  of  the  church.  In  modern 
times  even  members  of  the  church  have  fol- 
lowed them,  and  today  it  is  a  settled  fact 
in  large  circles  that  an  explanation  wholly 
precluding  the  miraculous  of  the  resurrec- 
tion belief  may  wxll  be  consistent  with 
Christianity.  A  careful  examination  of  this 
question  is  the  more  urgently  needed. 

Two  views  formerly  emphasized,  have 
now  disappeared.  According  to  the  fraud 
theory  the  disciples  did  not  believe  in  the 
resurrection  of  Jesus,  but  as  the  evil  report 
of  the  Jews  (Matt.  28.  13,  15)  asserted, 
knowingly  invented  the  resurrection  of  the 
Lord.  This  could  be  expected  from  them 
only  if  one  misjudged  their  moral  sincerity 
so  evident  in  all  the  writings  of  the  New 


Explanations  of  Historical  Facts  49 

iTestament,  and  ignored  the  sufferings  which 
they  had  to  endure  just  because  of  their 
faith  in  the  Risen  Lord.  The  swoon  theory 
asserted  that  when  Jesus  was  taken  from  the 
cross,  he  was  not  yet  quite  dead  and  that  he 
revived  to  a  new  hfe  in  the  cool  sepulcher. 
But  it  did  not  answer  the  question  how  the 
half-dead  could  appear  to  the  disciples  as  the 
conqueror  of  death,  and  what  had  finally 
become  of  him.  Both  attempts  of  explica- 
tion must  be  considered  as  wholly  abortive 
because  they  are  opposed  from  the  very  start 
by  every  historical  probability.  To  deal  fur- 
ther with  them  were  labor  thrown  away. 
Only  two  interpretations  of  the  facts  are  to 
be  taken  seriously.  They  agree  in  that  they 
transfer  the  appearances  of  Jesus  exclusively 
to  the  consciousness  of  the  disciples,  but  they 
entirely  differ  in  the  derivation  of  these  phe- 
nomena. According  to  the  one  these  Chris- 
tophanies  are  only  a  reflection  of  the  dispo- 
sitions and  views  of  the  disciples  (subjective 
vision  theory).  By  the  other  they  are  con- 
sidered as  an  effect  of  God  and  Christ  on  the 
consciousness  of  the  disciples  (objective 
vision  theory).  While  formally  agreeing 
these  expositions  differ  much  materially,  and 


50       .The  Resurrection  of  Jesus 

must  be  treated  singly,  though  many  things 
which  concern  the  one  apply  also  to  the 
other. 


The   Christophanies   as   a   Mere    Re- 
flection OF  THE  Consciousness  of 
THE  Disciples 

As  the  church  history  of  all  centuries 
shows,  mighty  religious  movements  were 
frequently  accompanied  by  visionary  phe- 
nomena. Individuals  or  larger  circles  have 
not  seldom  heard  heavenly  voices,  seen 
angels,  saints,  or  departed  dead  who  gave 
them  commissions  and  encouraged  them  to 
action.  The  supposition  is  offered  that  the 
Christophanies  of  the  disciples  must  also 
thus  be  considered ;  their  seeing  of  the  Risen 
One  was  only  the  result  of  their  continual 
mental  occupation  concerning  the  Lord, 
whose  picture  had  indelibly  impressed  itself 
upon  their  souls.  Some  peculiarities  of  the 
Easter  accounts  could  thus  be  easily  ex- 
plained, but  the  question  is  whether,  on  the 
whole,  this  does  justice  to  the  historical 
facts. 

Visionary  appearances  usually  presuppose 


Explanations  of  Historical  Facts  5 1 

an  over-excitement  of  the  mental  and  phys- 
ical life.  Sometimes  a  diseased  condition  is 
the  cause,  sometimes  the  disposition  to  ec- 
stasy rests  on  extrordinary  bodily  or  mental 
exertion  and  fatigue.  The  attempt  has  often 
been  made  to  point  out  a  physical  disposition 
to  visions  on  the  part  of  the  disciples  of 
Jesus,  but  this  is  a  daring  undertaking.  It 
may  lawfully  be  admissible  to  make  a  med- 
ical diagnosis  of  a  man  after  2,000  years  on 
the  basis  of  scanty  and  often  disputed  rec- 
ords. But  at  any  rate  one  should  not  make 
the  disciples  run  as  fast  as  possible  first  to 
Galilee  and  then,  a  long  time  after  Easter 
have  experienced  visions  there  when  one 
must  imagine  in  them  a  special  asthenia  of 
the  nervous  system.  In  Galilee  their  af- 
fected mind  could  sooner  be  quieted  than  in 
Jerusalem,  where  everything  recalled  the 
fearful  events  of  Monday,  Tuesday,  and 
Good  Friday,  and  where  fear  for  one's  own 
safety  enhanced  mental  excitement.  But  it 
does  not  pay  to  dispute  about  possibilities 
which  completely  recede  before  careful 
examination. 

A  serious  consideration  against  the  vision 
theory  is  this,  that  the  disciples  must  have 


52       The  Resurrection  of  Jesus 

imagined  that  they  must  consider  the  ap- 
pearances of  the  Lord  as  real  events.  In  a 
dream  we  imagine  that  everything  is  real 
which  happens  to  us,  and  when  we 
suddenly  awake  a  few  minutes  may  pass  be- 
fore we  realize  that  we  have  been  only 
dreaming.  But  the  quiet  insight  comes 
without  fail.  In  like  manner  it  should  have 
happened  to  the  disciples  had  the  seeing  of 
the  Risen  Lord  been  of  a  visionary  kind. 
During  the  period  of  ecstasy  they  might  well 
have  thought  they  saw  Jesus  bodily,  heard 
his  words,  touched  his  body;  but  afterward 
they  would  become  conscious  that  they  had 
seen  a  vision.  But  the  question  ought  to  have 
come  to  them  at  once  whether  what  they  had 
seen  in  a  vision  could  lay  claim  to  full  reality. 
It  would  be  correct  to  state  that  Peter,  after 
awakening  from  the  vision,  considered  the 
sheet  filled  with  all  manner  of  unclean  beasts 
(Acts  10.  10-19,  28),  as  no  more  really  ex- 
isting than  Paul  did  the  Macedonian  who  in- 
vited him  to  come  to  Europe  (Acts  16.  9). 
The  more  frequently  the  apostles  had  visions, 
the  more  able  they  would  be  to  discern 
between  vision  and  reality  (comp.  Acts  12. 
9-1 1).    One  can  here  only  avail  himself  of 


Explanations  of  Historical  Facts  53 

the  supposition  that  later  tradition,  as  it  is 
extant  in  our  Gospels,  has  transferred  to  the 
outer  world  what  the  original  witnesses  ex- 
perienced and  announced  only  as  mental 
events.  Ostensibly  one  can  refer  here  to 
Paul.  In  I  Cor.  15.  5-8,  he  speaks  of  the 
self-manifestations  of  Christ  in  a  term  which 
is  indeed  sometimes  used  of  visions.  But 
Paul  himself  makes  it  evident  that  he  did  not 
consider  the  appearances  of  the  Risen  Christ 
as  mere  visions.  His  own  experience  before 
Damascus  is  proof  of  that.  We  w^ill  not 
withal  refer  to  the  Acts  of  the  Apostles, 
which  in  its  three  narratives  of  the  con- 
version of  Paul  (Acts  9.  1-9;  22.  3-1 1 ;  26. 
4-18)  presupposes  that  his  companions  had 
possibly  also  received  an  impression  of  the 
self-manifestation  of  Christ,  and  records 
that  Paul  in  consequence  of  the  brightness  of 
the  appearance  had  lost  his  sight.  The  op- 
position party  would  find  here  also  a  later 
description.  Paul  himself  accurately  dis- 
tinguishes the  experience  before  Damascus 
from  the  visions  which  he  frequently  had 
afterward.  Of  these  he  did  not  like  to  speak 
(2  Cor.  12.  1-5)  and  never  made  use  of 
them  in  his  preaching.    But  the  appearances 


54       The  Resurrection  of  Jesus 

of  the  Lord  before  Damascus  he  treats  as  a 
unique  manifestation  by  which  he  became 
convinced  in  an  indubitable  manner  of  the 
bodily  resurrection  of  the  Lord  and  of  his 
glorified  life  (i  Cor.  9.  i ;  15.  8;  comp.  Gal. 
2.  16) .  From  this  follows  a  posteriori,  a  con- 
clusion for  the  appearances  which  the  dis- 
ciples had.  As  surely  as  Paul  was  con- 
vinced that  he  had  seen  the  Risen  Christ  in 
bodily  form,  so  surely  did  he  also  consider 
the  seeing  of  the  first  disciples  not  as  a  mere 
vision,  not  as  a  purely  mental  picture. 

It  is  usually  objected  to  that  the  special 
value  of  the  first  appearances  of  Jesus  rests 
on  this,  that  in  them  the  disciples  thought 
they  saw  the  Lord  on  earth,  whereas  he  was 
seen  later  only  in  heaven.  On  this  account 
Paul  did  not  mention  the  vision  of  Stephen, 
which  was  so  highly  important  for  him 
(Acts  7.  51  seq.),  among  the  appearances 
he  records  in  i  Cor.  15.  But  this  expedient 
is  abortive  in  every  respect.  It  does  not 
answer  the  question  why  it  is  that  after  a 
certain  point  of  time  the  disciples  did  not 
expect  to  see  Christ  again  on  earth,  but  only 
in  heaven ;  besides,  it  completely  ignores  the 
actual  fact.     On  the  Damascus  road  Paul 


Explanations  of  Historical  Facts  55 

saw  Jesus  not  on  earth  but  in  heaven,  and  he 
nevertheless  was  convinced  that  he  saw  him 
bodily.  Reversedly,  in  a  later  vision  he  saw 
the  Lord  by  his  side  (Acts  23.  11),  and 
Luke,  who  narrates  this,  sees  therein  nothing 
conflicting  with  his  account  of  the  ascension 
(Acts  2.  3-11).  It  is  not  the  place  where 
one  sees  Christ  but  the  manner  in  which  he 
is  seen  which  establishes  the  distinction  be- 
tween those  first  fundamental  appearances 
and  the  later  visions. 

To  this  difference  the  fact  also  points  that 
the  self-manifestations  of  Jesus  were  made 
only  to  a  considerably  small  number  of 
people  and  ceased  entirely  after  a  certain 
time.  Visionary  movements  as  a  rule  are 
more  intensive  and  lasting.  In  the  persecu- 
tion which  began  immediately  after  the 
founding  of  the  church  and  increased  after- 
ward, an  increase  of  visions  would  have 
been  more  likely  than  their  rapid  disappear- 
ance. We  hear  nothing  of  any  attempt  on 
this  account  to  obtain  appearances  of  the 
Lord.  No  one  undertook  to  bring  about 
visions  by  fasting  and  asceticism.  They 
were  ever  reserved  as  special  favors  of  the 
Lord.    Under  the  supposition  of  the  vision 


56       The  Resurrection  of  Jesus 

theory  this  is  just  as  strange  as  the  isolated 
appearance  and  rapid  ending  of  the  appear- 
ances. 

With  all  this  we  have  not  yet  touched  the 
main  question:  How  is  the  accomplishment 
of  Christophanies  in  the  disciples  to  be  ex- 
plained? A  vision  occurs  only  when  one  is 
constantly  occupied  with  an  object.  It  does 
not  bring  before  the  spiritual  eye  entirely 
strange  pictures  in  an  arbitrary  manner,  but 
uses  ideas  which  already  exist  in  the  mind. 
Perhaps  it  brings  the  solution  of  a  question 
with  which  the  mind  had  already  busied 
itself  for  a  long  time.  It  does  not  offer 
something  wholly  unexpected,  something 
which  lies  completely  outside  the  horizon. 
If  the  Easter  appearances  were  visions  of 
this  kind,  faith  in  the  Risen  One  did  not 
produce  them,  but  their  expectations.  The 
disciples  must  at  least  have  already  asked 
themselves  whether  the  Lord  had  not,  after 
all,  come  again  to  life.  The  faith  must  have 
already  been  nascent,  perhaps  yet  almost 
unconscious,  and  came  into  view  only  with 
the  appearance  of  the  Risen  Lord.  Vision 
does  not  convince  the  unbeliever  but  it  con- 
firms the  believer. 


Explanations  of  Historical  Facts  57 

How  little  the  Easter  narratives  fit  here  is 
obvious.  The  doubt  of  the  disciples  plays  in 
them  an  important  part,  and  the  appearances 
of  Jesus  always  come  unexpectedly  and  sur- 
prisingly. This  instance  may  be  put  aside 
by  the  assertion  that  one  has  to  deal  here 
with  perspicuous  apologetics.  But  to  all 
doubt  in  the  resurrection  the  church  opposed 
the  assurance  that  the  disciples  had  by  no 
means  credulously  become  victims  of  fraud 
or  self-deception;  it  was  rather  with  diffi- 
culty that  they  could  be  convinced  of  the 
certainty  of  the  appearances  of  Christ.  But 
this  criticism  does  not  suffice  to  put  aside  a 
fact  attested  by  the  apostle  Paul.  Among 
the  appearances  in  i  Cor.  15.  5-8,  he  men- 
tions one  to  James,  evidently  the  brother  of 
the  Lord  (Gal.  i.  19;  2.  9,  12).  Before  the 
death  of  Jesus  we  never  rneet  with  James 
among  the  disciples  of  the  Lord.  According 
to  John  8.  5  his  brethren  did  not  believe  on 
him,  and  the  same  idea  causes  the  narrative 
in  Mark  3.  21,  according  to  which  the 
friends  of  Jesus  went  out  to  lay  hold  of  him, 
for  they  said,  "He  is  beside  himself."  Soon 
after  Easter  (Acts  i.  14)  and  later  on  (i 
Cor.  9.  5)  the  brethren  of  the  Lord  belong  to 


58       The  Resurrection  of  Jesus 

the  congregation  of  the  believers  In  the  Mes- 
siah. This  change  can  hardly  be  explained 
in  any  other  way  than  that  it  had  been 
brought  about  by  the  appearance  which 
James  experienced.  We  have  therefore  to 
deal  here  with  a  seeing  which  has  faith  not 
as  a  cause,  but  as  an  effect. 

This  is  still  more  decidedly  the  case  with 
Paul.  True,  efforts  have  been  made  to*  show 
by  a  careful  psychological  inquiry  that  the 
conditions  existed  in  him  which  could  and 
must  lead  to  a  Christ  vision.  But  this  Is  in 
complete  contradiction  to  PauFs  own  state- 
ments. Of  doubts  in  the  correctness  of  his 
service  under  the  law  and  of  his  good  con- 
science in  persecuting  zeal,  of  which  so  much 
is  made  in  modem  descriptions  of  the  con- 
version of  the  apostle,  he  knew  nothing 
himself.  He  states  rather  that  until  the  time 
when  it  pleased  God  to  reveal  his  Son  in  him 
he  had  advanced  In  Judaism  and  become  a 
fanatical  persecutor  of  the  church  (Gal.  i. 
13-16).  Also  the  touching  description  of 
the  conflict  between  to  will  and  to  perform 
(Rom.  7.  7-25)  can  only  be  adduced  as  a 
natural  explanation  of  his  conversion  when 
one  forgets  that  in  this  section  we  have  the 


Explanations  of  Historical  Facts  59 

statement  of  a  Christian  about  his  con- 
dition without  Christ,  not  the  confession  of 
a  still  unbelieving  Pharisee.  It  is  certain 
that  a  deeply  founded  love  of  truth  and  a 
rare  religio-moral  seriousness  had  already 
distinguished  the  persecutor  Paul;  but  with 
this  the  disposition  for  a  visionary  seeing  of 
the  Risen  Christ  was  not  given.  The  sud- 
denness and  force  of  his  inner  change  were 
also  wholly  unintelligible,  had  long  prepara- 
tion paved  the  way  for  his  conversion. 

Not  only  James  and  Paul,  but  the  first 
apostles  also,  offer  no  sufficient  cause  for 
the  origin  of  Christ  visions.  How,  in  the 
course  of  thirty-six  hours,  the  disciples 
should  have  come  from  the  deepest  hopeless- 
ness to  the  most  joyous  certainty  that  Jesus 
lives,  remains  an  unsolved  problem.  Had  a 
slowly  germinating  belief  in  Easter  grown 
into  gradual  maturity,  it  would  not  have  led 
to  visions.  But  in  the  event  that  faith  had 
come  suddenly  it  is  incomprehensible  how 
the  change  could  have  taken  place  in  so  short 
a  time.  It  is  questionable  whether  the  vision 
theory  can  escape  this  dilemma. 

How  does  it  suggest  that  the  Easter  be- 
lief originated?     We  receive  no  uniform 


6o       The  Resurrection  of  Jesus 

answer.  Most  pleasing  is  the  assumption 
that  the  impression  of  the  person  of  Jesus 
upon  his  disciples  had  been  so  marked  that 
his  picture  accompanied  them  day  and  night. 
The  contrast  between  the  unique  grandeur 
and  the  awful  fate  of  the  Lord  was  con- 
tinually with  them,  and  finally  found  its  so- 
lution in  a  vision.  But  such  a  development 
would  have  required  more  time  than  the 
space  of  hardly  two  days,  and  the  question 
how  the  disciples  came  to  this  conviction 
at  the  moment  of  the  resurrection  of  Jesus, 
is  eluded.  The  disciples  must  have  had  a 
certain  basis  to  accept  something  so  extra- 
ordinary. Here  predictive  words  and  types 
of  the  Old  Testament,  like  Psalm  i6;  Isa. 
53 ;  Jonah  2.  i ;  Hos.  6.  2,  seem  to  offer 
themselves  in  explanation;  but  they  are  too 
indefinite  to  have  originated  the  Easter  be- 
lief. Only  when  other  proof  existed  for  the 
disciples  that  Jesus  was  risen  was  their  at- 
tention directed  to  those  testimonies  of  the 
Old  Testament  (comp.  John  2.  22\  20.  9). 
The  same  applies  to  Jesus's  own  prediction 
of  his  resurrection.  The  behavior  of  the 
disciples  in  those  critical  days  sufficiently 
shows  that  those  prophetic  words  of  the 


Explanations  of  Historical  Facts  6i 

Lord  had  made  no  impression  upon  them. 
Besides,  Mark  clearly  states  that  the  dis- 
ciples first  of  all  did  not  know  what  to  do 
with  Jesus's  prophecy  of  the  resurrection 
(Mark  9.  lo;  comp.  John  2,  22). 

With  greater  reason  one  could  refer  to 
the  empty  sepulcher.  The  disappearance  of 
the  body  of  Jesus  could  have  indeed  awak- 
ened the  thought  of  the  resurrection  of  the 
Lord.  In  itself  it  would  rather  have  led  to 
the  assumption  of  a  displacing  of  the  body 
(comp.  John  20.  2,  15) ,  but  belief  in  a  bodily 
resurrection  of  eminent  men  of  God  was 
much  propagated  at  that  time.  Thus  Herod 
thought  that  the  Baptist  executed  by  him 
had  again  appeared  in  the  person  of  Jesus ; 
and  in  the  Lord  the  people  variously  beheld 
one  of  the  former  prophets  who  had  to  come 
to  hfe  again  (Mark  6.  14;  8.  2y  seq.).  But 
we  must  not  here  overlook  an  important  dif- 
ference. The  popular  opinion  presupposed 
in  all  these  cases  a  return  to  the  earthly 
mode  of  existence;  whereas,  from  the  be- 
ginning the  disciples  were  convinced  that 
Jesus  was  risen  to  a  glorified  life.  Still  more 
important  is  another  circumstance.  Herod 
and  the  masses  were  only  led  to  the  thought 


62       [The  Resurrection  of  Jesus 

of  a  resurrection  of  the  dead  by  the  extra- 
ordinary miracles  of  Jesus;  the  wonderful 
deeds  wrought  by  him  demanded  an  unusual 
explanation.  Thus  it  was  supposed  that 
Jesus  must  have  previously  lived  in  a  higher 
world.  This  conclusion  however  completely 
ceased  in  the  minds  of  the  disciples  in  those 
days  after  the  Crucifixion;  their  hope,  that 
in  Jesus  the  Messiah  had  appeared,  seemed 
to  have  been  thoroughly  refuted.  Then  they 
recognized  also  that  no  miraculous  inter- 
vention had  taken  place  which  could  have 
served  or  upheld  their  faith.  Nothing  had 
happened  which  required  a  supernatural  ex- 
planation. The  cross  seemed  to  have  de- 
stroyed their  expectations  forever.  There 
was  no  reason  to  suppose  that  Jesus  was 
risen. 

Instead  of  recommending  the  vision 
theory,  the  empty  sepulcher  rather  refutes 
it.  The  question  how  the  body  of  Jesus  had 
disappeared  no  critic  has  answered  satis- 
factorily. The  tradition  had  certainly  noth- 
ing to  do  with  it.  It  had  no  power  to  dispose 
of  the  body,  and  at  any  rate,  it  would  not 
have  omitted  to  refute  the  resurrection  ser- 
mon of  the  disciples  by  a  reference  to  the 


Explanations  of  Historical  Facts  63 

real  whereabouts  of  the  body  had  it  been  in 
a  position  to  do  so.  We  might  sooner  think 
that  Joseph  of  Arimathea  might  have  trans- 
ferred the  body,  which  for  the  time  being 
was  in  his  tomb,  to  another  place.  But  for  a 
length  of  time  this  could  not  have  been  hid- 
den from  the  disciples,  even  if  Joseph's  con- 
nection with  the  congregation  had  only  been 
a  very  loose  one.  From  the  standpoint  of 
the  vision  theory,  nothing  remains  but  to 
think  of  some  inexplicable  accident. 

In  recent  times  Babylonian  mythology  has 
also  been  called  to  explain  the  belief  in  the 
resurrection.  The  temporaiy  disappearance 
and  reappearance  of  the  stars,  like  the 
withering  and  flourishing  of  the  vegetation, 
has  variously  been  presented  in  Oriental 
religions  as  a  death  and  resurrection  of  the 
gods.  An  immediate  transference  of  these 
notions  to  Jesus  is  indeed  not  to  be  thought 
of.  It  Is  supposed,  therefore,  that  in  view 
of  the  syncretism  of  that  time,  such  ideas 
were  natural  to  Judaism,  and  what  long  ago 
had  been  predicted  of  the  Messiah,  the  dis- 
ciples applied  to  the  person  of  Jesus.  Were 
such  the  case  the  Idea  of  a  Christ  who  died 
and  rose  again  should  have  been  the  common 


64       The  Resurrection  of  Jesus 

property  of  Judaism,  or  at  least  of  some  of 
its  circles;  that  such  camiot  have  been  the 
case  is  sufficiently  proved  by  the  reception 
v^hich  the  preaching  of  the  Crucified  One 
has  found  among  the  Jews.  How  much  this 
must  also  be  applied  to  the  disciples  has 
been  already  shown  from  their  behavior 
concerning  the  passion-prophecies  of  Jesus. 
The  Christian  Easter  faith  besides  leads 
much  farther  than  the  Babylonian  resurrec- 
tion myths :  here  the  question  is  always  of  a 
revival  which  is  followed  by  a  new  dying. 
Hope  does  not  go  beyond  the  orbit  of  life. 
But  the  disciples  of  Jesus  were  convinced 
that  the  Christ  who  rose  from  the  dead  is  no 
more  to  die,  but  is  once  for  all  removed 
from  the  power  of  death  (Rom.  6.  9).  To 
such  resurrection  belief  the  Babylonian 
religion  never  rose. 

The  Christophanies  as  the  Work  of 
God  and  Christ  on  the  Conscious- 
ness OF  THE  Disciples 

The  undeniable  defects  of  the  vision 
theory  in  its  setting  thus  far  treated  have  re- 
sulted   in    giving    to    it    a    different    turn. 


Explanations  of  Historical  Facts  65 

Prominent  thinkers  conceived  the  appear- 
ances of  the  Risen  Lord  as  visions  whose 
origin  are  not  to  be  sought  in  the  imagination 
of  the  disciples,  but  in  the  work  of  God  and 
Christ.  In  this  way  the  revelation  charac- 
ter of  the  appearances  is  preserved,  and  to 
the  conviction  of  the  disciples  that  Jesus 
truly  lives,  a  divine  security  is  given.  But 
this  does  not  explain  what  induced  the  dis- 
ciples to  distinguish  the  first  appearances  of 
the  Risen  One  from  later  Christ  visions,  and 
the  empty  sepulcher  remains  still  an  un- 
solved problem.  Besides,  we  cannot  see  the 
necessity  of  such  visions.  The  belief  of  the 
disciples  in  the  person  of  Jesus  was  too 
deeply  rooted  for  the  death  sentence  of  the 
Sanhedrin  to  have  made  them  doubt  the 
divine  sending  of  the  Lord.  Without  visions 
they  firmly  believed  that  the  spirit  of  Jesus 
was  safe  in  the  hands  of  God,  like  that 
of  all  the  pious  ones  and  prophets  of  the 
Old  Testament.  To  perform  unnecessary 
miracles  is  not  the  way  of  God;  and  the 
appearances  of  the  Risen  Jesus  had  actually 
given  to  the  disciples  much  more  than  the 
confidence  that  Jesus's  life  was  not  ex- 
tinguished.   The  advantage  of  this  form  of 


66       The  Resurrection  of  Jesus 

the  vision  theory  is  in  the  removal  of  the 
difficulties  which  lie  in  the  idea  of  a  resur- 
rection body.  Many  indissoluble  questions 
cease  as  soon  as  one  supposes  that,  in  conse- 
quence of  their  other  views,  the  disciples  re- 
ferred a  purely  spiritual  self-attestation  of 
the  Lord  to  a  being  risen  to  a  bodily  life. 
In  the  vision  they  could  have  seen,  heard 
and  touched  Jesus,  as  the  accounts  of  the 
Gospels  presuppose,  without  therefore  in- 
ferring a  corresponding  corporality.  But 
this  is  only  a  seeming  advantage.  We  can 
just  as  little  get  an  idea  of  a  real,  personal 
existence  which  is  detached  from  all  con- 
ditions of  the  earthly-bodily  life,  as  of  a 
resurrection-body.  Our  entire  existence  is 
so  dependent  upon  the  conditions  of  the 
sensuous  world,  that  only  a  shadowy  exist- 
ence seems  to  remain  when  we  leave  out  the 
material.  How  thinking,  volition  and  feel- 
ing are  possible  without  brains  and  nerves, 
besides  how  effect  upon  others  can  take  place 
without  bodily  mediation  is  entirely  beyond 
our  comprehension.  The  self -attestations  of 
Christ  are  made  more  intelligible  by  giving 
up  his  bodily  resurrection;  by  putting  a 
merely  imagined  and  constructed  miracle  in 


Explanations  of  Historical  Facts  67 

the  place  of  one  historically  accredited.  The 
objective  vision  theory  is  the  effort  to  medi- 
ate between  the  apostolic  testimony  and 
modern  criticism,  which  really  does  no  jus- 
tice to  either  of  the  factors. 

The  Christophanies  as  Demonstrating 
THE  Bodily  Resurrection  of  the 
Lord 

Thus  remains  that  explanation  of  the  fact 
which  the  New  Testament  presupposes 
throughout,  the  acknowledgment  of  the 
bodily  resurrection  of  Jesus.  True,  this  too 
leaves  many  questions  open;  above  all  the 
glorified  personality  of  the  Risen  Christ  is  to 
us  a  mysterious  and  absolutely  inconceiv- 
able quality^ ;  but  the  question  is  whether  on 
this  account  it  must  also  be  unreal.  We, 
whose  life  is  limited  to  time  and  space,  can 
have  no  conception  of  an  existence  which  is 
without  these  limits;  and  yet,  the  very 
noblest  and  best  in  our  life  points  beyond  the 
visible  world  to  a  higher  order  of  things  in 

1  It  may  be  mysterious,  but  certainly  not  "  inconceiv- 
able." The  mysterious  and  as  yet  incomprehensible  na- 
ture of  ether,  its  laws  and  qualities,  is  very  suggestive 
from  a  purely  scientific  point  of  view. — Editor. 


68       The  Resurrection  of  Jesus 

which  the  glaring  dissonances  of  the  spirit- 
ual and  bodily  existence  are  resolved  into 
harmony.  In  different  ways  the  attempt 
has  been  made  to  bring  within  our  compre- 
hension the  peculiar  nature  of  the  body  of 
the  risen  Christ.  It  has  been  assumed  that 
only  for  the  time  being  the  body  of  Jesus 
received  the  form  in  which  he  became  vis- 
ible, or  some  facts  especially  offensive  to 
our  philosophic  thinking  were  credited  to  the 
account  of  tradition,  which  formed  certain 
events  more  concretely.  All  these  are  suppo- 
sitions without  any  certain  foundation,  be- 
cause we  have  no  rule  for  estimating  things 
which  are  absolutely  beyond  our  experience. 
It  is  true  that  not  all  who  were  present  at 
the  appearances  of  the  Risen  One,  perceived 
one  and  the  same  thing.  The  Lord  was 
known  by  the  disciples  only  so  far  as  he 
made  himself  known,  and  their  eyes  were 
opened  for  the  seeing  of  him.  But  one 
thing  was  at  all  times  certain :  that  the  Lord 
had  really  and  bodily  come  to  them,  proved 
himself  alive  to  them,  and  gave  them  direc- 
tions for  their  present  work.  We  stand  here 
before  a  miracle  which  precludes  every 
natural  explanation.     Whoever  thinks  that 


Explanations  of  Historical  Facts  69 

he  must  refuse  such  a  one  from  the  start, 
would  do  the  same  if  the  historical  attesta- 
tion of  the  resurrection  of  Jesus  were  even 
more  evident  and  tangible  than  it  actually 
was.  Whether  one  acknowledges  a  miracle 
or  not  is  a  matter  of  one's  view  of  life  and 
faith,  not  of  historical  judgment  and  scien- 
tific inquiry.  The  decision  on  the  miracle 
of  the  resurrection  of  Jesus  depends  in  the 
end  on  whether  one  shares  the  religious  com- 
prehensive view  of  the  Bible,  and  especially 
what  importance  one  ascribes  to  the  person 
of  Jesus.  The  resurrection  of  the  Lord  is 
and  remains,  therefore,  an  article  of  faith. 


IVi 

THE  MEANING  OF  THE  RESURREC- 
TION OF  JESUS 

We  must  consider  the  resurrection  of 
Jesus  from  its  historical  effects.  Without 
the  Easter  experience  the  disciples  had  nev- 
er found  the  courage  to  preach  Jesus  as  the 
Messiah  to  all  the  world.  The  Christian 
church  would  never  have  been  founded,  and 
the  course  of  the  history  of  the  world  would 
consequently  have  been  led  into  entirely 
different  paths.  As  far  as  we  can  survey 
the  past  there  is  no  event  of  such  compre- 
hensive reach  as  this  fact,  which,  however, 
does  not  make  the  resurrection  of  Jesus  an 
object  of  faith.  It  could  be  a  certainty  to  us 
that  it  is  the  most  important  event  in  the 
history  of  the  world  and  yet  not  obtain  any 
relation  to  our  personal  life. 

It  is  otherwise  when  we  perceive  in  the 
resurrection  of  the  Lord  a  deed  of  God,  a 
sign  which  is  given  to  us  in  support  of  our 
faith.     Thus  it  becomes  a  manifestation  of 

the  power  of  God  which  overcomes  death, 

70 


Meaning  of  Resurrection  of  Jesus  71 

and  holds  out  to  us  prospects  of  restoration 
from  the  state  of  death. ^ 


The  resurrection  of  Jesus  has  a  decisive 
importance  for  us  when  we  consider  its 
bearing  upon  the  person  of  the  Lord.  Jesus 
intended  not  to  be  merely  a  pattern  of  faith 
and  love;  he  appeared  not  merely  as  a 
prophet  who  proclaimed  the  decree  of  God 
and  enjoins  the  commandments  of  God.  He 
claimed  to  be  the  Messiah  of  his  people,  the 
Lord  of  the  church,  yea,  the  Saviour  of  the 
world.  He  demanded  belief  in  his  person 
and  attested  that  in  him  God  has  approached 
humanity  as  nowhere  else.  Was  he  not 
asking  too  much  by  this  ?  He  may  have  de- 
voted himself  to  God  with  the  whole  fervor 
of  a  religious  genius  and  consumed  his  life 
in  the  service  of  love,  but  in  this  one  point 
should  he  not  have  paid  the  inevitable  tribute 
to  the  notions  of  his  people  and  time  by  esti- 
mating the  significance  of  his  life  in  the  form 
of  the  Messianic  consciousness,  and  thereby 
necessarily  overrating  it  ?  To  such  questions 

I  The  author  here  branches  off  to  express  opinions  not 
exactly  germane  to  the  critical  inquiry  he  has  been  pur- 
suing, and  they  are  for  that  reason  omitted. — Editor. 


y2.       The  Resurrection  of  Jesus 

of  doubt  the  resurrection  of  Jesus  gives  us  a 
divine  answer.  In  it  the  Father  acknowl- 
edged the  Son  and  put  upon  his  life  and 
work  the  seal  of  divine  attestation. 

Even  with  this  the  most  important  is  not 
yet  said.  Had  Jesus  remained  in  the  grave, 
an  after  effect  upon  the  millenniums  of  his- 
tory might  have  proceeded.  His  word  and 
example  would  not  cease  to  influence  human- 
ity and  hold  before  it  high  ideals  of  love  to 
God  and  fellow-man,  but  the  person  of 
Jesus  himself  would  be  nevertheless  a  quan- 
tity of  the  past.  The  dead  can  no  more 
interfere  with  the  earthly  life.  He  could  no 
more  assert  his  will  and  assist  later  genera- 
tions in  their  new  relations  with  word  and 
deed.  Never-resting  history  passes  over 
him,  to  be  led  by  new  personalities  to  new 
tasks  and  new  goals.  Here  lies  the  real 
nucleus  of  the  Easter  message.  It  concerns 
the  question  of  the  lasting  importance  of 
the  person  of  Christ.  If  Jesus  be  not  risen, 
he  may  be  an  important  factor  in  the  history 
of  the  Kingdom  of  God,  but  he  is  not  the 
everlasting  head  of  the  church.  He  may 
give  us  a  powerful  impulse  to  faith,  but  he 
cannot  be  the  object  of  faith  and  adoration. 


Meaning  of  Resurrection  of  Jesus  73 

We  cannot  trust  in  him  as  our  Redeemer, 
nor  call  upon  him  as  our  Lord;  we  have 
nothing  to  expect  from  him;  only  fanatics 
could  rely  on  him.  In  the  opposite  case, 
the  resurrection  of  Jesus  gives  us  the  cer- 
tainty that  a  lasting  communion  is  consum- 
mated between  us  and  God.  In  him  human- 
ity has  its  representative  before  God.  In 
his  death  Christ  not  only  established  a  new 
relation  to  God,  but  continually  assured  also 
to  everyone  in  his  weakness  his  continuous 
connection  with  God.  More  perfectly  than 
during  his  earthly  life  is  he  now  the  executor 
of  the  divine  decree  of  salvation  to  the  world, 
the  Lord  who,  exalted  to  the  participation  in 
God's  government  of  the  world,  governs  the 
course  of  his  church  and  leads  everyone  to 
faith.  With  Jesus's  resurrection  an  entirely 
new  prospect  is  opened  to  humanity.  With 
him  its  head,  it  finds  itself  in  a  new  relation 
to  God.  In  his  person  it  has  the  pledge  for 
the  forgiveness  of  its  sin  and  for  the  attain- 
ment of  the  appointment  given  to  it  by  God. 
In  him  it  sees  the  creative  will  of  God  most 
gloriously  realized,  and  that,  by  it,  the  final 
victory  over  death  is  also  guaranteed. 

Thus  indeed  the  entire  state  of  faith  and 


74       The  Resurrection  of  Jesus 

salvation  of  the  Church  is  attached  to  the 
confession : 

"On  the  third  day  he  rose  again  from  th^ 
dead/' 


Date  Due 

■  3-  .,- 

iris  Ig 

L 

V '     Ti     * 

PT""^ 

Lw   O 

^0' 

i^^-fff^ 

^ 

r^  -  7 


